www.ditl.org

There's also the fact that it would be utterly impossible for Assange to be guilty of treason against the US.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:
But ultimately, this conflict isn't against an ennemy that has the capacity to exploit diplomatic security breach,

How can you be sure?

He's dead wrong, for the simple reason that AQ has already demonstrated it's ability to exploit security breaches (unless 9/11 is discounted on the grounds that the term "security breach" only applies if some form of security exists).

Captain Seafort wrote:None of which make even a peep about animals. Concession accepted.

Are you always that premature?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/scie ... genes.html

Unless this paper is another unreliable UK institution?

Also:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... _id=935783

Stanford scientists also disagree, apparently.

That wasn't really my point, though. Just an aside.

My obvious actual point was that war obviously doesn't require that both parties be sovereign nations.

And this:

bin Laden is only "strong or influential" in the Afghan-Pakistan border region, if that

doesn't change that he is influential. There was not a peep about how influential or powerful an organization or ruler has to be, either, but I don't see you jumping on that point.

Also, where did I say a damn thing about executing Assange on treason charges? I was referring to the people leaking info when I mentioned treason.

I agreed with the idea of assassinating Assange, not charging him with something.

Captain Seafort wrote:He's dead wrong, for the simple reason that AQ has already demonstrated it's ability to exploit security breaches (unless 9/11 is discounted on the grounds that the term "security breach" only applies if some form of security exists).

Please notice in this sentence:

SolkaTruesilver wrote:But ultimately, this conflict isn't against an ennemy that has the capacity to exploit diplomatic security breach,

The presence of the word "diplomatic", which is effectively the adjective to use when adressing the kind of documents that have been revealed so far.

I wasn't aware 9/11 was the result of a DIPLOMATIC security breach.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:

Captain Seafort wrote:He's dead wrong, for the simple reason that AQ has already demonstrated it's ability to exploit security breaches (unless 9/11 is discounted on the grounds that the term "security breach" only applies if some form of security exists).

Please notice in this sentence:

SolkaTruesilver wrote:But ultimately, this conflict isn't against an ennemy that has the capacity to exploit diplomatic security breach,

The presence of the word "diplomatic", which is effectively the adjective to use when adressing the kind of documents that have been revealed so far.

I wasn't aware 9/11 was the result of a DIPLOMATIC security breach.

When that diplomatic security breach is spread around all the internet for someone with 5min and in internet cafe, or some sort of portable modem, or even someone in a city with access to a computer who is willing to print things out and take it to the caves or what have you, then yes, they do have the capacity to exploit a diplomatic security breach.

Sonic Glitch wrote: When that diplomatic security breach is spread around all the internet for someone with 5min and in internet cafe, or some sort of portable modem, or even someone in a city with access to a computer who is willing to print things out and take it to the caves or what have you, then yes, they do have the capacity to exploit a diplomatic security breach.

*sigh*

I think you overestimate AQ's striking capacity. I don't doubt they do get access to the information that have been laid out, but I really doubt the inner working of German/US meetings is going to bring anything, as they are reduced to prank bombing airplanes with ink cartridge.

AQ is reduced to attack soft targets because of efficient intelligence work is preventing them from importing dangerous material or securing it locally on the scale necessary to hit anything else. At the moment, the best they could do is kill 10-15 peoples like your normal crazy killer with an assault weapon do in the US. That is not exactly high on the "national security" threat measure (even if each of these events are a tragedy for the people concerned. but then again, so is your random murder/mugging on the street)

Tsukiyumi wrote:Unless this paper is another unreliable UK institution?

I take it you either missed or ignored the fact that the word was in scare quotes, indicating that it was only being used as a loose approximation at best,

Stanford scientists also disagree, apparently.

Again, the abstract clearly highlights that only humans have a cultural predisposition towards warfare, rather than the genetic tendency towards mass organised violence of ants. Regardless of the claim made, that's no more warfare than a football riot.

My obvious actual point was that war obviously doesn't require that both parties be sovereign nations.

I've never disputed that point, as you'd have realised if you'd read the first fucking thing I wrote in this argument.

And this:

bin Laden is only "strong or influential" in the Afghan-Pakistan border region, if that

doesn't change that he is influential. There was not a peep about how influential or powerful an organization or ruler has to be, either, but I don't see you jumping on that point.

Oh, so Nipper Read was fighting a war was he, rather than simply investigating and arresting a couple of thugs? I never cease to be amazed by your insistence on puffing up a few crooks into national or international statesmen.

Also, where did I say a damn thing about executing Assange on treason charges?

Where did I say I was talking to you, stupid?

SolkaTruesilver wrote:The presence of the word "diplomatic", which is effectively the adjective to use when adressing the kind of documents that have been revealed so far.

Wrong. The latest to come out is a list of worldwide sites sites the US considers critical to its national interests - effectively an AQ target list.

At the moment, the best they could do is kill 10-15 peoples

Bullshit. They killed hundreds in Madrid and dozens in London, and could kill hundreds more if they put bombs like those in the printers on passenger aircraft.

Captain Seafort wrote:

Also, where did I say a damn thing about executing Assange on treason charges?

Where did I say I was talking to you, stupid?

And I was talking to Solka, dipsh*t.

Tsukiyumi wrote:And I was talking to Solka, dipsh*t.

So why didn't you quote him, given that your post didn't directly follow his as mine did?

Is the US at War?

When the fuck aren't we at war with someone or something...?!

Captain Seafort wrote:

Tsukiyumi wrote:And I was talking to Solka, dipsh*t.

So why didn't you quote him, given that your post didn't directly follow his as mine did?

I didn't notice the interim posts. Sorry about that. Also, the issue of the definition of "war" started out aimed at him as well.

Deepcrush wrote:Is the US at War?

When the f**k aren't we at war with someone or something...?!

I'd say the real question is "who are you (and we) at war with?" The Taleban, sure - as allies of the Kabul government against the Taleban in the latest phase of the Afghan civil war. Against AQ? Certainly not - your country wasn't at war with Al Capone or the James gang or the Clantons, and mine wasn't at war with the Krays or the Provos, so why should this latest bunch of crooks get any different treatment?

Captain Seafort wrote:I'd say the real question is "who are you (and we) at war with?" The Taleban, sure - as allies of the Kabul government against the Taleban in the latest phase of the Afghan civil war. Against AQ? Certainly not - your country wasn't at war with Al Capone or the James gang or the Clantons, and mine wasn't at war with the Krays or the Provos, so why should this latest bunch of crooks get any different treatment?

You're honestly comparing AQ and Taliban with a couple of bank robbers??? One side being the belief that rape, torture and murder are just daily rights of those in charge so long as they blame God. The other side, poor guys who robbed for quick cash. Thats just pathetic even by your standards.

This latest bunch of crooks are striking out across national borders with the support of their own host nations. This latest bunch kills more people per year then any of the above gangs in the US did in their whole span. Its the difference between outlaws vs cops and Suicide Bombers vs school buses or hospitals.